I think I more or less understand this president now; the flatness and predictability of the character makes me feel those attempts were a bit silly. Mr. Romney, on the other hand, such an upright and tight citizen, doesn't inspire curiosity, so there's one reason why I'm not as engaged with the subject as I used to be.

But one can't keep mum about the two spectacles that dominated the news in the last two weeks so I'm posting here a long comment I read on The New Republic from a poster called eMish, in which he analyzes with a wry and keen observation the two conventions for what they are: pure theatre.

Read and enjoy.

_________________

At The Theater / Review by eMish

A Tale of Two Conventions: two oppositional plays presented in cycle

Both of these productions are set almost entirely in America, with
few foreign characters to consider. Those that do appear, with one
exception, are relegated to either minor roles or nebulous vagueries.

The physical accouterments of the stages were unmemorable, with these
differences: set designer R had either not gotten the digital memo or
was intentionally trying to evoke some past period. That constant stage
decoration - semi-circular tri-colored bunting hung from the balustrades
and balconies - was made of textile, which nobody uses anymore. Set
designer D took the more contemporary approach of LED's, used to good
effect to heighten the action on the stage. They shimmered
electronically, casting their own glow on the audience below.
Lighting technique also differed. R is illuminated subtly and
statically as an Ibsen play. When the applause lines came, it was a
simple order of "house lights up" to showcase the theater-goers'
reaction. I say "reaction" in the singular purposely--part of the aim of
both these vehicles is to display only one unified expression of the
crowd--huzzahs for heroes and hisses for villains.

The pulsing, rotating lights scanning the crowd at D were more akin
to a rock concert, and like the LED bunting, served to propel the
narrative to its multiple climaxes.

D contained many elements of the rags-to-riches trope, scrappy
characters battling up from the bottom in order that they may distribute
their hard-won sagacity outward as communitarians to lift up the
bedraggled.
One cannot say this of R, in which a rich man inspires by virtue of
his example. Each one of us individually can rise according to his own
aspirations, and when we arrive, can serve as pathfinders for those that
wish to follow.

The Casts

In R, a memorable performance by C, playing the portly, bare-knuckled
man from Jersey. He has a commanding stage presence by virtue of his
sheer physicality and no-nonsense attitude. So much for the good. His
portrayal was so self-serving (not even mentioning the main character
until late in his soliloquy) that it undermined the main theme of the
whole piece. He seemed to be auditioning for a better role in a future
production. He deflected his tepid reviews by calling the house "flat."

Mrs. R (as played by AR) turned in a warm if somewhat confined
portrait of the supportive wife and mother and adequately evoked that
standard character in a way that successfully communicated the
traditional mores of the archetype. Still, one has to say this type of
performance sometimes seems a bit antiquated when presented as it was
here, without irony.

R (as the lead role R) had obviously studied his part well, knew his
lines, and delivered them accurately, if somewhat perfunctorily. The
essence of being an actor is to disappear into the character, so the
crowd suspends disbelief and is unaware of the artifice. Mr. R. is not
practiced enough in his craft to pull this illusion off, and his
performance, while earnest, disclosed this fact. He may have been
miscast for this particular production. In any event, some time spent in
summer stock may improve his ease with future roles. His portrayal was
by no means the strongest of this piece, and his character's primacy was
achieved only by virtue of arriving at the reveal, the pinnacle of the
narrative, as if deposited there.

The most interesting character by far, the one the crowd no doubt
left the theater chattering about, was the buffoon, exquisitely rendered
by E. His twelve minute solo was equal parts improvisation,
avant-garde, and surreal non-sequitur. It created quite the stir, though
it again side-tracked the narrative, as in C's turn. On the other hand,
his creative visualization of the invisible villain O may have in fact
been the main focus of the entire production. If so, I must admit I
missed the point.

There were many strong performances in D. Among them was M, wife of
the main character. Her costume was gorgeous, reminiscent of the style
and grace exhibited by the late great JO. Gleaming smile, an athletic
and dignified carriage, a direct and competent gaze. She was able to
convey an emotional immediacy of connection supporting the main
character. I don't mean to suggest that this character is any less
circumscribed by the iconic wife-and-mother meme--but it is a
contemporary type, a more youthful one, better turned out and better
suited for our contemporary theater of the moment.

JB, as the loyal aide to our hero, conveyed a down-home earthiness, a
man-in-the-street sense of commonality while extolling his knight. He
ended with an entirely believable endearment to his wife, and when he
teared up and his voice broke, the illusion was so complete I felt
myself swept along. Bravo.

The odious villain BL must be mentioned. This character had the
advantage of being based on the truly evil actions of an historical
figure, and so possessed a reality of maleficence lacking in the
invisible villain in R. One could not ask for a better antagonist, and
the hero O's destruction of him continually punctuated the narrative--a
bit too much. We got it already.

O's performance was more mature than much of his previous work,
deliberately structured to convey the gravitas the character requires,
holding back a bit on the insurgent zeal with which he first played this
role. The play describes serious times, and a certain restraint is
indicated.

But the kudos belong to BC, who stole the entire show with his blend
of wit, folk wisdom, and simple storytelling. He is one of the finest
actors of our time, beloved by the American Theater, his checkered
accomplishments rendered hazy by the affection that comes with time.

The aim of a critic of theater is to critique theater qua
theater--whatever connections or applications an audience may make to
their own visceral lives or topical events is their own business. This
is illusion, after all. Therefore, I limit my commentary here to which
show was more effective at entertaining the crowd, we groundlings--for
in these sorts of spectacles, the vicarious thrill and confirmation and
release of all our most fervent affective desires may be achieved,
whatever those desires may be. We come to have them stroked and to
realize a catharsis.
Substance is never the question in these sorts of programs. That is
not their purpose. Facts diminish in importance. Contrary to the popular
saying, we seem entitled these days to our own. These are not weighty
dramas or high comedies. They are equal parts melodrama and light farce
and romance which nevertheless enrapture millions, for that is the
popular taste, as can be observed in many other media besides theater.

The pity is that we are so eager to embrace the romance of belonging
that we have exchanged critical thinking, which demands specifics,
diligently ferrets out facts, weighs substance, and arrives at a
determination, for the ease and vicarious satisfaction of the ecstatic
thrall or the easy enemy, both the domain of all who are confident in
their own righteousness, the righteousness of the crowd.

The play has indeed become the thing, but not as old Will meant it.

Given all that, these shows are produced by Parties, and I wanted
one. I enjoyed (virtually, of course) dancing to Springsteen under the
swirling lights more than sitting through the drear and doom of Nordic
shadows.

5 Comments:

"E" is no 'buffoon', a point that makes eMish's 'review' just another iteration of the blind leading the blind.

"E"'s first interview is with his home paper, explains what he meant to accomplish,http://www.pineconearchive.com/120907-1.html

“President Obama is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people,” Eastwood told The Pine Cone this week. “Romney and Ryan would do a much better job running the country, and that’s what everybody needs to know. I may have irritated a lot of the lefties, but I was aiming for people in the middle.” ..."

"E" was the sole performance I watched, from either convention.Three times - it was that interesting, because that was the real theatre, by the only person in the world who has the stature to tackle it.

well, except for the scene where the concept of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel was clearly not favored by the "D" audience. The next day, the US State Dept re-invented surrealism with their spiel on "The Status of Jerusalem"

Thanks for saving me the time of having to read any more of the kool-aid fuelled porridge that is now TNR.com

Hope you had a chance to read Totten's interview with a Syrian Kurdhttp://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/blog/michael-j-totten/world-according-syrian-kurdistan

I'd agree that eMish writes from a (somewhat) Leftish perspective but I thought the review rather brilliantly highlighted what needed to be understood, again and again, about both conventions: It was all scripted and choreographed to the letter and to the last untamed curl on Michelle's otherwise perfectly coiffed hair and the pleading gestures of her beautifully manicured, long fingered, hands.It has really come to that: about who puts on the better show, the more coherent and easily understood narrative, the better performance. Anything but authentic.

If you want ethics, substance and greatness, I suggest you click on the link I posted of JFK's preparation for his inauguration speech.

Eastwood's performance, I suspect, was the only exception. It was spontaneous and rambling which is usually how normal people speak. That's why it stuck out. It curried favour with those who appreciate its candor and authenticity, it raised the ire of those who couldn't stand the chaotic manner of its delivery.

It's a sad symbol of our politics that the only real actor was actually an actor.

I listened on radio as a kid, and watched every R. and D. conventions either in newsreels when FDR and Ike ran or on TV since. . I also attended one convention in Philadelphia with my father who was assigned to cover it. I think it was the Republican one for Willkie.

These were the worst I have ever watched and only the worst was the 2004 Conventions. They all have been theatre. These two were bad theatre because the script was bad. Conventions prior to primaries had a framework and an order of things, but no script. They were silly much of the time, which made them tolerable, because I love slapstick comedy, and boring a great deal of the time, but you could always count on having a lot of laughs. They were hilarious in their silliness. Since there is no need for a convention, you'd think the R. and D. would come up with something more creative and meaningful as a way to accept the nomination. What am I saying??? Politicians don't have an original thought in their heads. The debates might be interesting if watching two very boring guys turns anyone on. And yeah, I'll vote for Obama because the D will fight to keep our civil liberties so long fought to include in our laws.